Brazil and Nicaragua
10th Session of the Open Working Group on the Sustainable Development Goals
31 March - 04 April, 2014
Statement by Brazil and Nicaragua
Mr. Co-chair,
Brazil and Nicaragua support the statement by Bolivia on behalf the G-77 and China.
In our national capacities, we wish also to congratulate the co-Chairs for the work in
preparation of this meeting. Your letter of 18 March, the revised focus areas and the
organization of issues reflect forward movement within the overall parameters of
positions expressed by Members last time we met.
The grouping of focus areas into 8 clusters is a useful tool to organize this week's session.
Whether or not they are an acceptable basis for streamlining 19 focus areas into
something less numerous is a decision that Members of the OWG must take in due
course. Brazil and Nicaragua, as I am sure other troikas, will have much to say on
clustering as we go along. Essentially, however, they must meet the test of the Rio+20
outcome document, and should not overstate issues that are not central to the Rio
consensus, or attempt to introduce elements that may alienate us from the essential goal
of devising an agenda on growth, social inclusion and environmental sustainability.
We need to work on the transformational nature of the SDGs, their global scope,
universal applicability and the common but differentiated responsibilities that should
apply across the board, as appropriate. Leadership from the developed countries is
warrented on key issues, such as promoting more sustainable consumption patterns and
committing to means of implementation commensurate with the ambition of the goals.
On the 19 focus areas, we wish to make the following comments, taking the Rio+20
document as our basis.
The overall content of the focus areas does not translate the systemic dimensions of
universality with the clarity we are looking for. Most areas are described in ways that
seem to be addressing challenges of less developed countries only, not those of developed
ones. On the other hand, very little is said about differentiation in accordance with
"respective capacities" when it comes to the means of implementation. As a result of this
double distortion, the text as currently drafted places disproportionate burden on
developing countries -- they not only have to commit to attaining the goals, they also are
expected to find the means to do it.
"Peaceful and non-violent societies, capable institutions" was the only focus area left
unclustered, out of 19. This says something about it being a "point outside the curve", or
the “odd man out” in relation to the mandate of Rio+20. We found no grounds for dealing
with it in the Rio consensus, and insisting on this divisive issue might prove to be a costly
distraction, keeping us from making good progress on the core social, economic and
environmental challenges facing us in the 21st century. The agenda of fighting organized
crime, dealing with violence, corruption and conflict already has its appropriate venue in
the UN. Some issues that currently appear under the peaceful and non-violent societies
cluster, including "rule of law" (to the extent that is means things like access to justice or
the legal empowerment of the poor), could, perhaps, find acceptable formulation under
other existing areas, such as means of implementation. The concerns and special needs of
conflict-affected countries may be addressed under different topics, as they are relevant
to developing countries more broadly.
Rio+20 speaks of the international dimension of the rule of law, and this element is
absent from the co-Chair's text. Rule of law, internationally, means state and non-state
actors fully respecting legally binding treaties and commitments as well as engaging in
the reform of existing global governance mechanisms with a view to increasing the voice
and representation of developing countries, making them more democratic and
accountable. The concept of "policy space" also needs to be clearly recognized and
reaffirmed in the document, in its multiple dimensions, especially to safeguard national
specificities, plurality and diversity. There is no "one size fits all" concept of the rule of
law for different sovereign nations, unless, of course, issues have been codified
internationally and are binding for that state.
We take note of the reference to means of implementation under each focus area, but we
expect to incorporate concrete proposals and to further develop this issue, including on its
systemic dimensions. We need to learn the lessons of MDG 8, which fell short of
expectations in part due to a disconnect with the substantive and action oriented other
goals.
Mr. Co-Chair,
Nicaragua and Brazil support a short narrative in the form of a Chapeau to the SDGs,
referencing key principles from the Rio+20 document, without reopening it, in particular
the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities -- CBDR.
As to methodology, Nicaragua and Brazil believe it would be useful for the Group to
receive from the co-Chairs a suggested timeline with expected outcomes for the next
meetings, following the example of the Committee on Finance for Sustainable
Development.
We would also support requesting the Secretariat to mobilize the help of the UN
Development System, under the leadership of DESA, to contribute information that
might be useful for the elaboration of targets and indicators in each specific area, within
the respective attributions and mandates of consulted UN entities.
I thank you, Mr. Co-chair.
31 March - 04 April, 2014
Statement by Brazil and Nicaragua
Mr. Co-chair,
Brazil and Nicaragua support the statement by Bolivia on behalf the G-77 and China.
In our national capacities, we wish also to congratulate the co-Chairs for the work in
preparation of this meeting. Your letter of 18 March, the revised focus areas and the
organization of issues reflect forward movement within the overall parameters of
positions expressed by Members last time we met.
The grouping of focus areas into 8 clusters is a useful tool to organize this week's session.
Whether or not they are an acceptable basis for streamlining 19 focus areas into
something less numerous is a decision that Members of the OWG must take in due
course. Brazil and Nicaragua, as I am sure other troikas, will have much to say on
clustering as we go along. Essentially, however, they must meet the test of the Rio+20
outcome document, and should not overstate issues that are not central to the Rio
consensus, or attempt to introduce elements that may alienate us from the essential goal
of devising an agenda on growth, social inclusion and environmental sustainability.
We need to work on the transformational nature of the SDGs, their global scope,
universal applicability and the common but differentiated responsibilities that should
apply across the board, as appropriate. Leadership from the developed countries is
warrented on key issues, such as promoting more sustainable consumption patterns and
committing to means of implementation commensurate with the ambition of the goals.
On the 19 focus areas, we wish to make the following comments, taking the Rio+20
document as our basis.
The overall content of the focus areas does not translate the systemic dimensions of
universality with the clarity we are looking for. Most areas are described in ways that
seem to be addressing challenges of less developed countries only, not those of developed
ones. On the other hand, very little is said about differentiation in accordance with
"respective capacities" when it comes to the means of implementation. As a result of this
double distortion, the text as currently drafted places disproportionate burden on
developing countries -- they not only have to commit to attaining the goals, they also are
expected to find the means to do it.
"Peaceful and non-violent societies, capable institutions" was the only focus area left
unclustered, out of 19. This says something about it being a "point outside the curve", or
the “odd man out” in relation to the mandate of Rio+20. We found no grounds for dealing
with it in the Rio consensus, and insisting on this divisive issue might prove to be a costly
distraction, keeping us from making good progress on the core social, economic and
environmental challenges facing us in the 21st century. The agenda of fighting organized
crime, dealing with violence, corruption and conflict already has its appropriate venue in
the UN. Some issues that currently appear under the peaceful and non-violent societies
cluster, including "rule of law" (to the extent that is means things like access to justice or
the legal empowerment of the poor), could, perhaps, find acceptable formulation under
other existing areas, such as means of implementation. The concerns and special needs of
conflict-affected countries may be addressed under different topics, as they are relevant
to developing countries more broadly.
Rio+20 speaks of the international dimension of the rule of law, and this element is
absent from the co-Chair's text. Rule of law, internationally, means state and non-state
actors fully respecting legally binding treaties and commitments as well as engaging in
the reform of existing global governance mechanisms with a view to increasing the voice
and representation of developing countries, making them more democratic and
accountable. The concept of "policy space" also needs to be clearly recognized and
reaffirmed in the document, in its multiple dimensions, especially to safeguard national
specificities, plurality and diversity. There is no "one size fits all" concept of the rule of
law for different sovereign nations, unless, of course, issues have been codified
internationally and are binding for that state.
We take note of the reference to means of implementation under each focus area, but we
expect to incorporate concrete proposals and to further develop this issue, including on its
systemic dimensions. We need to learn the lessons of MDG 8, which fell short of
expectations in part due to a disconnect with the substantive and action oriented other
goals.
Mr. Co-Chair,
Nicaragua and Brazil support a short narrative in the form of a Chapeau to the SDGs,
referencing key principles from the Rio+20 document, without reopening it, in particular
the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities -- CBDR.
As to methodology, Nicaragua and Brazil believe it would be useful for the Group to
receive from the co-Chairs a suggested timeline with expected outcomes for the next
meetings, following the example of the Committee on Finance for Sustainable
Development.
We would also support requesting the Secretariat to mobilize the help of the UN
Development System, under the leadership of DESA, to contribute information that
might be useful for the elaboration of targets and indicators in each specific area, within
the respective attributions and mandates of consulted UN entities.
I thank you, Mr. Co-chair.